Playing Again.

[JohnP]

Aren't things rough when you see them close up. Tried extension tubes this time.

Canon EOS 60D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

1/160s f/32.0 at 100.0mm iso400. 68mm Extension Tube. Sigma Ringflash.

Canon EOS 60D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

1/160s f/32.0 at 100.0mm iso400. 68mm Etension Tube. Sigma Ringflash.

Canon EOS 60D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

1/160s f/32.0 at 100.0mm iso400. 48mm Extension Tube. Sigma Ringflash.

Canon EOS 60D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

1/160s f/32.0 at 100.0mm iso400. 36mm Extension Tube. Sigma Ringflash.

[FUJI]

These are great Macro shots John.......I am so pleased that you are enjoying using your new Ring-Flash.

Yes, things do look a bit grotty close up, which is why the meticulous Macro Shooters of small items or even dead beetles etc, wash then dry them well..........I did some similar indoor shots of a couple of tiny display items, but never posted them because of their dusty surfaces.........but.....that was just prior to getting my new eyes.......I see every speck now.

By the way, if you want to find a living insect to try your new toys on for real.........find a fairly sheltered spot in your garden where a few broad leaves lie...........( have your kit ready to shoot at between f16 -f11 and s160)......Look very carefully on the undersides of each leaf and there you may discover a few very common, tiny .....GLOBULAR SPRINGTAILS....( Google them)......they are very round, have attractive markings, very fine legs and feelers, and won't be in the mood for jumping because of the cold.

I often go Springtail hunting, armed with my readied Macro-Gear.......

.......Should your garden not produce any, then go into the furthest corners turning over any old boards or tiles etc.....you will invariably uncover groups of Woodlice and the odd Centipede or Millipede ......( the former will be dozy and the latter as fast as ever).......Can't wait to see the results.......I have my Wokmate Bench set up, with my camera on a tripod at the ready......the Springtails or Woodlice will be dozy because of the cold.

By the way, I still ave my 2.8/100 Macro lens on camera for much of the time now.....it makes a great Street and Portrait lens.....see my latest posts for proof positive.

FUJI

[JohnP]

FUJI...I will try some live stuff in due course, at the moment I'm being bothered with a bad knee, the one on the leg I nearly lost in a motorcycle accident when I was 20. I thought if I played around indoors it will give the old knee a chance to get better... it usually does until the next time and just practicing on a few indoor objects will better prepare me for bug time... thanks for the info.

[Guest DaveW]

I think your illustrations John with increasing extension at a relative aperture of f32 illustrate how the effective aperture alters and diffraction results become more apparent, What you describe as "looking grotty close up", that I described as diffraction effects in your ring flash post. The image should still look sharp, not soft and blurry at that magnification. If you look at your bottom picture with 36mm of extension it is far sharper than the second one down at 68mm or extension due to diffraction showing even on our low resolution computer monitors. On a higher resolution print it would be even more obvious, even at larger f-numbers.

You may find this f-number calculator interesting. However it only calculates with the lens set at infinity, but for a lens to go to 1:1 or life size on the sensor it has to effectively be extended one focal length. Therefore at 1:1 your Canon 100mm lens already has in effect 100mm of extension from the sensor at infinity, which means in effect though the lens is marked f32 at 1:1 your working at an effective aperture of f64. With the extra 64mm of tubes behind it you were then working at an effective aperture of nearly f86 even though it still says f32 on the lens, so diffraction becomes even more obvious!.

To use the calculator set the relative f-stop (that marked on the lens) then if the lens is racked fully out to 1:1 add it's focal length plus the extension tubes length (in your case 100+64 = 164) for the extension and then click calculate to find the effective aperture you are working at.

http://imaginatorium...stuff/tubes.htm

As you add longer tubes you will need to open up the aperture to avoid the image getting worse through diffraction, but depth of field will then get even shallower. If this were not so there would not have been any need to invent focus stacking in order to use wider, less diffraction producing apertures. You will need to start focus stacking at those higher magnifications, using relative apertures like f8 marked on your lens, as per Fuji's instructions in his recent post.

DaveW

[annie]

brilliant john......i like the 'grotty' look..!

[Guest DaveW]

Just to illustrate that you can obtain sharpness at very high magnification through using a wide aperture to mitigate diffraction and then photostacking to obtain a greater depth of field, see this picture by Charles Krebs. Something all macro photographers should all aspire to, though few of us can come anywhere near Charles Krebs for technique and talent.

http://www.photomacr...topic.php?t=243

DaveW

[FUJI]

Just to illustrate that you can obtain sharpness at very high magnification through using a wide aperture to mitigate diffraction and then photostacking to obtain a greater depth of field, see this picture by Charles Krebs. Something all macro photographers should all aspire to, though few of us can come anywhere near Charles Krebs for technique and talent.

http://www.photomacr...topic.php?t=243

DaveW

I agree ......Has anyone looked at my .....Macro Photo Stacking tutorial and test shots of yesterday?.....or was it rubbish?

FUJI

[FUJI]

Thank you Salvatore.........I am pleased to learn that it made sense despite a few iPad spellcheck errors ( damn thing has a mind of its own)..........

....Bridge cameras and Stacking?......Never though of that, but, I am very certain that one of the top names in the macro and stacking uses a Bridge or a good Compact.......I will see if I can dig his details out for you.

Here you go...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/how-to/photo-techniques/534428/macro-photography-amazing-results-with-simple-equipment-by-jack-hood

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/40826252

FUJI

[JohnP]

From what I can make out these absolutely amazing macros were taken with a Panasonic FZ50 and a Panasonic G1 and are taken in JPEG.

http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/

[FUJI]

From what I can make out these absolutely amazing macros were taken with a Panasonic FZ50 and a Panasonic G1 and are taken in JPEG.

http://beingmark.com...ro-illustrated/

GREAT....That is the man and write up I was thinking off...Just fantastic......Thank you John:

[annie]

a friend of mine does brilliant stacking, and she uses an HS10...........

[Guest DaveW]

You can do stacking with any camera that allows manual focusing Salvatore.

Why do you think bridge camera photography does not go down well here? People surely can only judge an image, not what it's been taken with if you did not tell them it was taken on a pro camera or a mobile phone. Generally it's down to the photographer, a decent one can produce good images on a compact knowing it's limitations, whereas another may buy a pro camera and still turn out rubbish. Anyway here's a guide to stacking using any camera you can manual focus with:-

http://zerenesystems...als/tutorial001

You can use Combine ZP which is free instead of the time limited Zerene Stacker trial for the above stacking, just Google Combine ZP to find the download..

By the way all cameras are real cameras. Many in the past would claim 35mm SLR cameras were toys and only medium format cameras were real cameras, but they would be similarly looked down on by some of the large format studio camera users. Unless you want to sell your pictures you take photographs to suit yourself, if some others like them too that's a bonus.

As I have pointed out in the past, unless you want to print poster sized images you will not see any difference between a point and shoot and a larger sensored multi megapixel camera on a computer screen because the screen only has the resolution of a two or three megapixel camera. Therefore unless you crop your images drastically a picture taken on a point and shoot or a pro camera will look exactly the same on screen since the lack of screen resolution destroys the differences.

Our cameras are really overkill unless we print large prints because the media most of us show them on cannot show the difference. However that does not stop us all aspiring to more and more pointless megapixels thinking our on screen images will be better and that somehow the latest camera will make us a better photographer. In fact I often think modern cameras have far too many options which get in the way of picture taking, with overlarge menu systems giving dozens of pointless variations just because a computer chip now can. Photographers can now spend more time playing with the camera like an X-Box than taking pictures. A parallel is mobile phones where many are now used more for playing games or surfing the Web than phoning people anymore, supposedly their prime purpose, rather than buying a tablet better suited for games and web surfing!

Some are even predicting the death of the DSLR in the not to distant future:-

http://www.stuckincu...are-the-future/

However, maybe all cameras will eventually roll up into a video camera where stills are simply extracted from a video sequence (after all what is a motordrive sequence except a short burst video saved as individual frames?)

DaveW

[Guest DaveW]

As to macro with bridge cameras Salvatore see:-

http://www.amateurph...nt-by-jack-hood

In reality good macro photography is as much about lighting quality as equipment, just as with general photography. Direct undiffused on camera pop-up flash seldom produces good lighting. More diffused lighting is usually used in most of the examples in this link (some tutorials at the end of it):-

http://smashingtips....hotography-tips

Note: It may not be obvious at first but most of the picture titles on the above link are click on links that take you to tutorials or other pictures by the same photographer.

All cameras are able to produce reasonable macro shots, though some may need a supplementary close up lens on front of the existing lens to get really close. However macro requires different techniques to general photography where depth of field is not a problem. Therefore always read up as much on macro technique as you can find on the Web, or ask questions on sites like this.

DaveW

[Guest DaveW]

Hi John,

Been trying to find these links again for you which shows diffraction at higher magnifications using too small an f-stop. There is really no other answer then for image quality with a reasonable depth of field but to focus stack and use a wide aperture:-

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/diffraction-small-apertures.html

As I understand it diffraction occurs at all apertures as it passes the diaphragm edge, but there is less edge in proportion to clear unobstructed centre with larger apertures so the effects on the image are less. The further the lens effectively moves from the sensor in focusing closer, the more the diffracted waves will have spread out before hitting the sensor, hence the same sized hole in the diaphragm (relative f-stop marked on the lens) will behave like a smaller and smaller f-stop the further it moves away from the sensor, which is why it is termed the effective aperture in that case.

http://www.janrik.ne...n_Tradeoff.html

DaveW